On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 05:34:06PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote: > I can't see another inconsistencies for v12 for now, but there are some > that appeared before. > If this work can be performed more effectively or should be > postponed/canceled, please let me know.
Note sure that it is much productive to have one patch with basically
one-liners in each one... Anyway..
All your suggestions are right. I do have one doubt for the
suggestion in execnodes.h:
@@ -1571,7 +1571,6 @@ typedef struct TidScanState
int tss_NumTids;
int tss_TidPtr;
ItemPointerData *tss_TidList;
- HeapTupleData tss_htup;
} TidScanState;
The last trace of tss_htup has been removed as of 2e3da03, and I see
no mention of it in the related thread. Andres, is that intentional
for table AMs to keep a trace of a currently-fetched tuple for a TID
scan or something that can be removed? The field is still
documented, so the patch is incomplete if we finish by removing the
field. And my take is that we should keep it.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
